James L. Gibson – författare

The American legal system is experiencing a period of extreme stress, if not crisis, as it seems to be losing its legitimacy with at least some segments of its constituency. Nowhere is this legitimacy deficit more apparent than in a portion of the African American community in the U.S., as incidents of police killing black suspects - whether legally justified or not - have become almost routine. However, this legitimacy deficit has largely been documented through anecdotal evidence and a steady drumbeat of journalistic reports, not rigorous scientific research. This book offers an all-inclusive account of how and why African Americans differ in their willingness to ascribe legitimacy to legal institutions, as well as in their willingness to accept the policy decisions those institutions promulgate. Based on two nationally-representative samples of African Americans, this book ties together four dominant theories of public opinion: Legitimacy Theory, Social Identity Theory, theories of adulthood political socialization and learning through experience, and information processing theories. The findings reveal a gaping chasm in legal legitimacy between black and white Americans. More importantly, black people themselves differ in their perceptions of legal legitimacy. Group identities and experiences with legal authorities play a crucial role in shaping whether and how black people extend legitimacy to the legal institutions that so much affect them.This book is one of the most comprehensive analyses produced to date of legal legitimacy within the American black community, with many surprising and counter-intuitive results.

The American legal system is experiencing a period of extreme stress, if not crisis, as it seems to be losing its legitimacy with at least some segments of its constituency. Nowhere is this legitimacy deficit more apparent than in a portion of the African American community in the U.S., as incidents of police killing black suspects - whether legally justified or not - have become almost routine. However, this legitimacy deficit has largely been documented throughanecdotal evidence and a steady drumbeat of journalistic reports, not rigorous scientific research. This book offers an all-inclusive account of how and why African Americans differ in their willingness to ascribe legitimacy to legal institutions, as well as in their willingness to accept the policydecisions those institutions promulgate. Based on two nationally-representative samples of African Americans, this book ties together four dominant theories of public opinion: Legitimacy Theory, Social Identity Theory, theories of adulthood political socialization and learning through experience, and information processing theories. The findings reveal a gaping chasm in legal legitimacy between black and white Americans. More importantly, black people themselves differ in their perceptions of legal legitimacy. Group identities andexperiences with legal authorities play a crucial role in shaping whether and how black people extend legitimacy to the legal institutions that so much affect them.This book is one of the most comprehensive analyses produced to date of legal legitimacy within the American black community, with many surprising and counter-intuitive results.

In "Electing Judges", leading judicial politics scholar James L. Gibson responds to the growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence. While many people have opinions on the topic, few have supported them with actual empirical evidence. Gibson rectifies this situation, offering the most systematic and comprehensive study to date of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts - and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial. Gibson finds that ordinary Americans do not conclude from campaign promises that judges are incapable of making impartial decisions. Instead, he shows, they understand the process of deciding cases to be an exercise in policymaking, rather than of simply applying laws to individual cases - and consequently think it's important for candidates to reveal where they stand on important issues. Negative advertising also turns out to have a limited effect on perceptions of judicial legitimacy, though the same cannot be said for widely hated campaign contributions.Taking both the good and bad into consideration, Gibson argues that elections are ultimately beneficial in boosting the legitimacy of courts, despite the slight negative effects of some campaign activities. "Electing Judges" will initiate a lively debate inside both the halls of justice and the academy.

In "Electing Judges", leading judicial politics scholar James L. Gibson responds to the growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence. While many people have opinions on the topic, few have supported them with actual empirical evidence. Gibson rectifies this situation, offering the most systematic and comprehensive study to date of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts - and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial. Gibson finds that ordinary Americans do not conclude from campaign promises that judges are incapable of making impartial decisions. Instead, he shows, they understand the process of deciding cases to be an exercise in policymaking, rather than of simply applying laws to individual cases - and consequently think it's important for candidates to reveal where they stand on important issues. Negative advertising also turns out to have a limited effect on perceptions of judicial legitimacy, though the same cannot be said for widely hated campaign contributions.Taking both the good and bad into consideration, Gibson argues that elections are ultimately beneficial in boosting the legitimacy of courts, despite the slight negative effects of some campaign activities. "Electing Judges" will initiate a lively debate inside both the halls of justice and the academy.

This study of civil liberties focuses on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the dispute in Skokie, Illinois over the rights of members of the Nazi party to hold public demonstrations. Because this issue promoted at least one-fourth of the membership of the ACLU to take some form of action, ranging from objecting and reducing financial contributions to resigning, this conflict presents the opportunity for a case study of the conditions under which attitudes toward civil liberties are mobilized into behavior.

Overcoming Historical Injustices is the last entry in Gibson's 'overcoming trilogy' on South Africa's transformation from apartheid to democracy. Focusing on the issue of historical land dispossessions - the taking of African land under colonialism and apartheid - this book investigates the judgements South Africans make about the fairness of their country's past. Should, for instance, land seized under apartheid be returned today to its rightful owner? Gibson's research zeroes in on group identities and attachments as the thread that connects people to the past. Even when individuals have experienced no direct harm in the past, they care about the fairness of the treatment of their group to the extent that they identify with that group. Gibson's analysis shows that land issues in contemporary South Africa are salient, volatile, and enshrouded in symbols and, most important, that interracial differences in understandings of the past and preferences for the future are profound.

Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa investigates the degree to which the political culture of South Africa - the beliefs, values, and attitudes toward politics held by ordinary people - impedes or promotes the consolidation of democratic reform. One set of values is of particular concern in this study - political tolerance. The authors contend that political tolerance is a crucial element of democratic political cultures in general, but that in the South African case, tolerance is perhaps more important than any other democratic value. Since South Africa is one of the most polyglot countries in the world, the only viable strategy for survival is tolerance toward the political views of others. The overwhelming emphasis throughout this book is on finding ways to enhance the willingness of South Africans to 'put up with' their political enemies, to allow open and widespread political competition, and to coexist in their diversity.

Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa investigates the degree to which the political culture of South Africa - the beliefs, values, and attitudes toward politics held by ordinary people - impedes or promotes the consolidation of democratic reform. One set of values is of particular concern in this study - political tolerance. The authors contend that political tolerance is a crucial element of democratic political cultures in general, but that in the South African case, tolerance is perhaps more important than any other democratic value. Since South Africa is one of the most polyglot countries in the world, the only viable strategy for survival is tolerance toward the political views of others. The overwhelming emphasis throughout this book is on finding ways to enhance the willingness of South Africans to 'put up with' their political enemies, to allow open and widespread political competition, and to coexist in their diversity.

In recent years the American public has witnessed several hard-fought battles over nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. In these heated confirmation fights, candidates' legal and political philosophies have been subject to intense scrutiny and debate. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations examines one such fight--over the nomination of Samuel Alito--to discover how and why people formed opinions about the nominee, and to determine how the confirmation process shaped perceptions of the Supreme Court's legitimacy. Drawing on a nationally representative survey, James Gibson and Gregory Caldeira use the Alito confirmation fight as a window into public attitudes about the nation's highest court. They find that Americans know far more about the Supreme Court than many realize, that the Court enjoys a great deal of legitimacy among the American people, that attitudes toward the Court as an institution generally do not suffer from partisan or ideological polarization, and that public knowledge enhances the legitimacy accorded the Court.Yet the authors demonstrate that partisan and ideological infighting that treats the Court as just another political institution undermines the considerable public support the institution currently enjoys, and that politicized confirmation battles pose a grave threat to the basic legitimacy of the Supreme Court.